Oh, dear. Ross Bell of the New Zealand Drug Foundation, after years of agitating for relaxation of the drug laws, is fretting that liberalisation might open the way to corporate domination of the cannabis trade.

Hmmm. Perhaps he should heed the old saying about being careful what you wish for.

Bell has long advocated a permissive approach to so-called recreational drugs.

His argument is that drug use should be treated as a health issue rather than criminalised. So you’d expect him to be thrilled that the Government has promised a binding referendum on decriminalisation of cannabis.

You can take it as read that the activists’ ultimate goal is decriminalisation of the drug altogether, and perhaps other drugs too. That’s how advocates of “progressive” social change advance their agenda: incrementally.

That’s a big step from the cannabis referendum, and a major ‘assumption’ based on nothing.

It’s a strategy that relies on a gradual softening-up process. No single step along the way, taken in isolation, is radical enough to alarm the public. Change is often justified on grounds of common sense or compassion, as the legalisation of medicinal cannabis for terminally ill people can be.

But each victory serves as a platform for the next. Once change has bedded in and the public has accepted it as the new normal, the activists advance to the next stage. The full agenda is never laid out, because that might frighten the horses.

That sounds like nothing more than general scare mongering based on nothing.

Now, back to Bell’s misgivings about where the cannabis referendum might lead.

It’s not decriminalisation that worries him. Why would it, when for years he’s been using his taxpayer-subsidised job to lobby for exactly that outcome?

No, what upsets him is the thought of the drugs trade being contaminated by the profit motive. A liberal drugs regime is all very well, just as long as the trade doesn’t fall into the hands of wicked corporate capitalists.

A stupid way to put things. there are legitimate and I think fairly widely held concerns over the commercialisation of cannabis. Alcohol is a good example of how an intoxicating substance can be legally pushed for profit.

Bell’s vision, obviously, is of something much purer and more noble, although it’s not entirely clear what model he has in mind. A People’s Collective, perhaps.

Another baseless assertion.

The parallels with alcohol are obvious. Both can cause great harm to a minority of users, although activists like to play down the adverse consequences of drugs other than alcohol. We don’t hear much, for example, about the devastating effects cannabis can have on the young or the mentally unstable.

I’ve seen and heard quite a lot about that. It’s a primary reason for suggestions that there be an R18 on cannabis – similar to alcohol age restrictions, where even 18 has been controversial.

But if we’re going to have an honest national debate about cannabis, the important thing, surely, is that it should focus on social wellbeing rather than being distorted by covert ideological agendas.

No evidence of ‘covert ideological agendas’, just an assertion targeting someone who has been quite responsible in promoting drug law reform.

Karl du Fresne's shitty and apparently unresearched hit piece on @nzdrug's Ross Bell (https://t.co/FGZcDj3hd4) is chock full of wrongness (probably unnecessary spoiler alert). A thread to try and restore some reality to the world. /begins

Why such a model? KdF makes the claim below that it's because Bell is a filthy commie (as well as the bizarre claim that he's somehow less worried about cannabis than alcohol). Maybe Bell is. I don't know. But if KDF bothered to read the publication he's printed in, then … /3 pic.twitter.com/ZuIhaYbZAK

Which leads to this jaw-dropping bit of question begging from KdF. Without having bothered to actually look at any evidence, he simply stipulates that large-scale corporate production and sale can deliver a "safe" market in cannabis … because capitalism, of course. /5 pic.twitter.com/zz66ms3ugQ

So, in my opinion (of course), KdF evidences the same basic inability to see beyond the conventional status quo as when he dismisses the Velvet Underground as "essentially anti-music" … as well as an unforgivable laziness in approach to what is an important societal issue. /end

I thought I'd done a reasonable job of indicating why I felt the piece was lazily researched and generally misleading in its claims, complete with sources to substantiate my objections. Do you require more?

Russell Brown, one of the best informed advocates of drug law reform in the media joins in.

As Andrew notes, KdF's claim that "it's not entirely clear what model he has in mind" is somewhat undone by the fact the the Drug Foundation has published a model policy outlining just that. But there are, of course, other good models, including Europe's cannabis social clubs.

47 Comments

Duker

artcroft

I agree a lot with KdF. The drug foundation really idolises the romantic ideal of puffing on pipe full of weed under the stars while watching the galaxy turn. This weed of course was grown by hobbits in the Shire and bartered for basket full of delicious veges. Man and hobbit at peace with his world.

Griff.

Decimalization
Not a crime to use but still leaves the supply in the hands of a black market controlled by the criminal world. We already have Decimalization by default as the police have come to the realization that prosecuting users does nothing except waste their time.

Legalization.
Fully legal regulated market .

How we regulate the market is important.
Large cooperation seek to expand their market by increasing the over all size of the market. The product is treated as a commodity.
Small boutique produces are more focused on differentiating their product from others to gain market share. The product is sold on quality.

Griff.

As far as I know a home grown allowance will be included in the proposed regulations. Small numbers of home grown plants is allowed in just about every jurisdiction where cannabis is legal so far.
Once you can buy clones it is easy as to grow plants.
Eight week cycle under lights @ 500grammes yield you only need it legal to grow a couple of plants for personal use.
I dont smoke enough nowadays to make growing and curing my own worth the hassle. I am more interested in being able to legally purchase small quantities of a range of strains of consistent quality for a reasonable price.

artcroft

“They’re seeing the development of a commercial model that mirrors the sale of other harmful, but legal, products like alcohol and tobacco. Bell is particularly worried about the comparison with alcohol and its 80/20 rule, acknowledged in studies by the World Health Organisation and others.”

Sorry Mr Bell but try finding a business – even a mom and pop business that doesn’t rely on a 80/20 rule.
You also need to start acknowledging that weed is the problem not just the manner in which it is purveyed. Having said that I’m not against liberalisation. I just can’t abide the simplistic ‘jeans and t-shirt; good. Suit and tie; bad’.

david in aus

Karl Du Fresne’s piece cannot be wrong as it is an opinion and his facts are correct. You may disagree with his opinion and inferences. He makes a logical argument based on past actions of activism in initiating social change.

I suspect people are pushing back against Karl, as he lays out the considered steps the activists are pushing for all to see. Their methods are more effective if people cannot see through them.

PartisanZ

Griff.

slippery slope
You said that if we allow A to happen, then Z will eventually happen too, therefore A should not happen.

The problem with this reasoning is that it avoids engaging with the issue at hand, and instead shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals. Because no proof is presented to show that such extreme hypotheticals will in fact occur, this fallacy has the form of an appeal to emotion fallacy by leveraging fear. In effect the argument at hand is unfairly tainted by unsubstantiated conjecture.

david in aus

I think marriage should be left to same-sex couples anyway, they seem to the only group valuing it. The legal institution of marriage is not worth the paper it is written on. Yes, there has been an incremental degradation from the 1970s. It is more of social institution now. Live together for two years, bang, you cannot differentiate defacto from legally married.

Polygamous relationships? who need a piece of paper. Bigamy should be struck as a legal offence if we are to be consistent.

phantom snowflake

High Flying Duck

The stats are pretty damming around single parent households.
Kids, in general, need 2 parents and fare significantly better if they grow up in a stable family environment. Not sure if marriage is an essential factor or not, but I think statistically it may be. I believe same sex marriages are not faring badly in outcomes for children.
Do you disagree with the stats?

phantom snowflake

PartisanZ

@Du Fresne – “But each victory serves as a platform for the next. Once change has bedded in and the public has accepted it as the new normal, the activists advance to the next stage. The full agenda is never laid out, because that might frighten the horses.”

This is pure, unadulterated ‘Charge of the Right Brigade’ rhetoric if ever I heard it …

The paranoid, delusional “full agenda” clearly does frighten the horses! And their riders!

And sure enough, there he is among the favoured “bloggers” at KiwiFrontLine, along with such illustrious names as John Ansell, Don Brash and Bob Jones.

To demean “activists” – or any ‘change agent’ for that matter – because they continue to attempt to refine and improve laws they’ve changed is the mark of a complete idiot IMHO … or something much worse …

Somewhere, from someone – perhaps his name was Roger – I got the impression it was all about ‘personal, individual freedom’ and ‘a level playing field’?

In reality, what Du Fresne calls “the activists’ advance” is far more likely to result in ‘freedom’ – with responsibility – and a much more level playing field – complete with essential goal and touch markings …

Corky

MaureenW

Griff.

Corky
At a guess because you think they both are smoking something.
You dont smoke as much cannabis as a tobacco uses smokes..Twenty joints a day would give you total couch lock and a headache which limits that higher use as it is just not pleasurable.
In legal markets the trend is away from smoking to vaping or edibles.
Cannabis is far less addictive than nicotine.

Griff.

I suggest a day in the weekend at the local police station followed by a day at A&E to find out what drugs are more destructive
You will see zero stoners arrested for antisocial behavior or brought in to be patched up.
You will see mostly drunks arrested for violence and crime followed by over half of admissions piss heads who have hurt both themselves and others.

david in aus

Griff.

Stoners are not well functioning.
However not every one who smokes is a stoner .
Just as not every one who drinks is a derelict alky down the city mission.
Few who smoke destroy their life’s because of their drug use.
Many who drink do so they also destroy the lives of those around them and cost us the taxpayer an incredible amount of money cleaning up the mess.
Relative harm.. .We should base our treatment of drugs on careful evaluation of the harm they cause
Not on the present approach based on Conservative “feels”.